Okay, here is a question for you. Since the state of a kingdom is a reflection of its ruler, given the state of the world, who would you claim to be the ruler? Did Paul tell us to be separate from the world, or did he tell us to revel in it? If it is Christ's kingdom, why did Paul tell us not to be of the world? If this is now Christ's kingdom, why is it clear that Satan still has power? (That is, why is God allowing Satan to ravage His Son's kingdom.)
The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
I think the point is I say Abraham knew because Jesus told Him. Perhaps visited Him in paradise? Who knows. I believe when Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, is because Jesus saw Him, told HIm it was His day, and Abraham rejoiced. I don't believe Jesus was simply throwing names.
The topic is getting carried away.
@EarlyActs
I thought that this might help with some argumentation. I am a futurist premillennialist, as that differs from dispensational premillennialism. There are things in common, but there are beliefs in futurist premillennialism that predate dispensationalism.
I thought that this might help with some argumentation. I am a futurist premillennialist, as that differs from dispensational premillennialism. There are things in common, but there are beliefs in futurist premillennialism that predate dispensationalism.
3 Resurrections
That's 666 YEARS, folks
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2023
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Greenville SC
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Conservative
Your response tells me that you haven't really given much consideration to the description of the 144,000 First-fruits in Revelation 14.
This group of 144,000 that was "redeemed from the earth" shows they were bodily resurrected out of the ground - of the land of Israel specifically.
They all have "no guile in their mouth", and are "without fault" before God's throne, which can only be said of the condition of the bodily-resurrected saints. Everyone of them is called "blessed and holy", which matches the fact that only the bodies of saints were raised n Matthew 27:52-53 on Christ's resurrection day.
Since they are all called "virgins", this indicates John is writing about the "no marriage or giving in marriage" restriction of the bodily-resurrected state.
They all come from those specific Jewish tribes in Revelation 7, which matches the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who rose from their broken-open graves around Jerusalem on the same day that Christ was resurrected.
This Revelation 14 group of 144,000 First-fruits are also described in Revelation 14:14-16 as the first ripened "sickle" harvest which the Son of Man sitting on a cloud in heaven "reaped" from the earth by Himself. The newly-ascended Son of Man with the golden crown of His Great High Priesthood "harvested" this group of the bodily-resurrected 144,000 from His location in heaven on that morning after His resurrection when He had first ascended to the Father.
The OT Mosaic ritual in Leviticus 23:10-12 of the sheaf handful of the First-fruits barley grain offered along with a single He-Lamb without blemish was a symbol of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints "harvested" from the dead on the same day the Lamb of God was raised from the dead.
The symbolism of both the handful of grain and the single He-Lamb offered together was fulfilled when the 144,000 First-fruits along with Christ the First-fruits were raised from the dead on that same day and were offered to God.
If you can't recognize this AD 33 event as the "First resurrection" which opened up the way for the rest of God's saints to follow in a bodily resurrection, then you miss John's entire message in Revelation 20. You are obviously confusing the term "First-fruits" (a group harvest) with the two titles of the "First-born" and the "First-begotten from among the dead", which two unique titles referred exclusively to Christ being the first to ascend to heaven in that resurrected state.
John never said that those in the "First resurrection" were raised and THEN reigned with Christ during the 1,000 years. You are presuming that this reign followed their resurrection. Scripture never says that.
Satan was to be loosed for a "little season" after the millennium expired, yes? John told the believers that this "short time" of Satan being cast down to earth in great wrath had already begun, even before John started writing Revelation (Rev. 12:12). This means the millennium when Satan's deception had been bound had already ended before John started writing Revelation.
You should try the YLT translation instead, which gives the more accurate meaning from the original Greek for Acts 24:15 & 25, and shows how soon that resurrection would occur. Why should Felix tremble with fear over a resurrection that might have been thousands of years in the future? It is not me that is adding words to scripture; it is your translation that is subtracting words from what Paul spoke.
"...having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is ABOUT TO BE a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;"
"...and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is ABOUT TO BE, Felix, having become afraid, answered, 'For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee.' "
This second bodily resurrection with a judgment at Christ's bodily return would be occurring in the near future to Paul's time.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
Don't you realize this is much earlier in Luke? He said it way beforehand. They did visually see him, but they didn't understand him. You are locked in to 2 program futurism, and it is a mess.
The Gospels were written not to be a bare record of the crucifixion but for the after-audience to get them not to reject the mission of Messiah to the world, and give in to the zealots and fight. There is a consistent time-lapse to many statements that applies much more to the generation than it does to the event of Jesus itself.
As one critical detail: the term 'leistes' in Luke's temple cleansing. There are other terms for crooks; this one is for those raising money as mercenaries or for them to fight. He may has well have said 'you have made my house a den of terrorists.' That's slightly relevant at 33 but is totally relevant as that generation rolls on.
That would be the generation that so many, many warnings were made about, the one who would not die until they had seen the kingdom come in power, etc.
The same as the one Hebrews' heart-appeal is made, to prevent them from repeating the deaths in the desert of old.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
I knew that long ago. But do you realize that 2 programs is driving both. 2 programs is was makes the mill necessary whether there is support or not. 2 programs is what makes people quote Gen 12:3 over and over, and never read Acts 13, and never quote Gal 3 and "in the Seed (Christ) all the nations will be blessed." Because those things are one program since the beginning.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
That's the stronghold on you. It is caused by D'ism and that is caused by people desperate during the era of German higher criticism of the Bible to find something--anything--that would restore proof of the Bible.
You are not being different from the world until recognizing that it belongs to him by rights, by the honor in the resurrection, by deserving it for his travail. It does not matter what you see in the news, you mission is to proclaim the right of Jesus Christ to be honored as the Son with the warning that failure to do so means the person will be smashed. That is the tenor of the NT. That is why it was darkness to dwell on a kingdom of Israel in Jn 12:34 and in Acts 1.
When you believe this about Christ from Ps 2, you are not "reveling in the world." You are asserting his rights to be honored to that world. Utterly different and very often rejected, no surprise.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
What is "throwing names"? The calculation showed that God was going to provide a help for man, born in Israel (the star's ascendancy) and be king of the world. And Christ may have visited, but the star was to rise when Shiloh was to come, and that is preserved all through to Daniel and to the maji to Bethlehem.
Since that was the message, that was what millions would believe and be sons of Abraham, not by lineage but by faith, Rom 4, Gal 3. It is so simple. The 'computing' of the stars movement gave the propositional truth(above) ; the tally of night stars gave the number of people who would believe. One credits righteousness (see below) and one provides the size of his total seed. In Jn 1 Jesus said he was the ladder-connection between heaven and earth upon which help for mankind was coming.
There is a further play on words in Gen 15. After Abraham calculates the Gospel from the stars, God calculates that his faith is righteousness; the same verb is used. It is to reckon, to regard the true value of, to credit the value of them.
Long day here, thanks for chatting and may have time tomorrow.
Throwing names is when you know someone famous (in this case, Abraham) and you start tossing out his name so that you appear to be more important than you are. Not because something actually happened, or because this person actually knows you, and considers you important. In other words, Jesus wasn't dropping Abraham's name for no reason. Abraham knows who Jesus is, and he knows why Jesus is on Earth, and that He is on Earth. He rejoiced to see that day.
Abraham didn't even try to count the stars. "5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” Abraham would never be able to number them. That wasn't the point that God was trying to make. Since Abraham would consider the stars to be innumerable, since He would not be able to number them, God told Him, so will your descendants be. Consider all the Jews, and all the Arabs today are descendants of Abraham. Yet God wasn't counting the Arabs, only the children of Isaac. It was the faith that Abraham showed in accepting what God said at face value, that God credited as righteousness. There was no wavering of a doubt in Abraham's faith. He was absolutely going to sacrifice Isaac. Why? Because he was thinking logically. If God promised that his descendants would come through Isaac, and God asked Abraham to kill Isaac, if he did, then obviously, God would have to resurrect Isaac. That was his thought process. He never doubted God in it. He learned before the birth of Isaac to trust God fully.
(This is also out of my depth, so if I make a blatant error in my understanding, please point it out. The reason why this is a good discussion, is I am here to discuss. I take what you say and consider it, even if I counter.)
I am not a dispensationalist. I stepped away a long time ago, and don't go with either covenant or dispensational theologies. I am a futurist premillennialist. Some of my beliefs may coincide with dispensationalism, just as some calvinist beliefs coincide with arminianism. They most certainly aren't the same, just share some similarities.
Have you been keeping up with the news? I mean I am so far behind that I have no idea what is happening in the world. (Really.) The only news I get is when I am at work, and I'm a night shift worker, so there isn't much.
What I am saying is at this time, this is still very much Satan's world, on loan from God, until the complete end when Satan is cast into the lake of fire. Satan can't do anything without God's permission, as we see in Job. I feel (be honest in how I say this, right) that the Father is in control, until He hands the Earth to Jesus, and completes turning Jesus enemies into a footstool. The millennial kingdom is the Messianic kingdom promised in scripture, and that part of the kingdom is temporary. A thousand years. At the end, Jesus finally defeats Satan, hades, and death, throwing them and Satan's followers, into the lake of fire. He then hands the kingdom back to the Father, as Paul says, that God may be all in all.
There is a lot to all of this. A lot that is not thoroughly explained in scripture, but only touched upon. As you say, we do have other business.
Why are you conflating Revelation 7 with Revelation 14? There is nothing to show that they are the same group. There is no describing article in Revelation 14. Jesus is with one hunderd and forty four thousand is different then, Jesus is with THE one hundred and forty four thousand.
They are not simply called virgins. They are/were virgins on earth. They had never been defiled by a woman. John is NOT writing what you believe He is writing. Stop forcing it. I removed the rest because you have not shown that you are justified in conflating Revelation 7 and Revelation 14.
The idea of first fruits is the first fruits of the harvest. What did Jesus mean when He said He would not drink of the first fruits until He drinks it anew with the disciples in the Kingdom? One of the cups that was drank in the passover is the first fruits. Jesus drank with them up to that particular point. It was also that point of the Lord's supper (communion). Foreshadowing of Jesus being the first fruits?
If you recognize an event in AD 33 as the "first resurrection" then you miss John's entire message in Revelation 20. God, through John, gives so much information that I am not sure how you can miss it. If you read the description of the one's reigning for 1000 years, it is blatantly obvious that no one in AD 33 matches the description. They were dead and John saw their souls. Then they were alive and reigning with Christ for a thousand years. John then says The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were over. Why did He say "the rest of the dead"? Because this group John is speaking of were resurrected. Right after this John tells us that this was the first resurrection. So this first resurrection was before the millennium, which you say was 967BC. (So long before Daniel was born...The estimate is that Daniel was born in 623BC.)
"And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years." They went from being souls "Then I saw the souls..." to living and reigning with Christ. That is more than enough to show the error in your reasoning.
Satan was released from the seal, from the heavy chains, from the bottomless pit in the abyss after the millennium, yes. However, this has nothing to do with Revelation 12. This has to do with the war before the millennium, and the war after the millennium.
It wasn't over the resurrection. I believe Paul may have told him about the judgement about to fall on Israel for rejecting the Messiah. 70AD. This is not the same as the judgement that comes at "the complete end", that is the end of all mankind, the end of creation, etc. Can you see why Felix might tremble in fear to hear about a coming judgement that will affect him as well?
Again, Jesus was speaking of the judgement at the "complete" end, the end of the time/age of man. It is obvious that this has not occurred. And the resurrection is prior to the millennium, so obviously it isn't "about to be" since it happened in 967BC.
Actually, it isn't present in Luke. So we can't know from Luke if this happened or not. Luke has Him say things on His way to the city. Matthew has Jesus saying things after He leaves. Obviously not the same events. And again, There is one program of redemption, and there are two parts. God's dealings with Israel, and God's dealings with the Gentiles. Paul makes the distinction clear. As I know there are Gentiles and Jews in the church, we also have the nation of Israel, within which God has a remnant. Two groups, distinct. And Paul made the distinction. The Jews of the nation of Israel (as distinct from the church) are our enemies. Do you believe Paul? However, He says they are only our enemies for the sake of the gospel. What would have happened to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Christ as their Messiah?
Some of the gospels were not written/compiled until after 70AD. Some as late as the second century. There are arguments over the gospels because it doesn't seem to be the work of particular authors, but the compilation of other manuscripts. It doesn't matter to me. God wrote it, God preserved it, and we have it. How it got to be that way is the least of my concern. What is in it matters.
"3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence."
There is a difference between a thief and a robber. (also burgler). A thief does not use violence, while robbers do. They could have translated it as bandit, considering den here is the word for cave.
The Revelation is all that is needed to fulfill that prophecy. That and Paul saying that he also saw heaven. He wouldn't talk about it however, beyond what he said.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that there are two programs of redemption. There is ONE. Also known as the plan of redemption. However, there are two groups of people involved, nay three. The gentiles, the Jews, and the church. The Jews are part of the nation of Israel, though some are also in the church. The Gentiles are the Gentiles, though some are also in the church. Why would Paul say that the Jews are our enemies for the sake of the gospel, if there aren't two groups. And why for the sake of the gospel? IT goes to what Paul said. Israel rejected, so the gospel went to the Gentiles, and by the obedience of the Gentiles, Israel will find mercy. That is the remnant, the elect of Israel.
If you want to prove that I believe in two programs, then prove that there is more than one way to God. Prove there is more than one gospel. Prove I believe there is more than one gospel.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
Maybe if the array was seen all at once. As you know I don't typically like to go 'long-form.'
The NT Enthronement Doctrine
Marcus Sanford, THE ENTHRONED KING (2020)
This essay takes the same topic as my book THE ENTHRONED KING and sequentially lists the doctrine of the Davidic enthronement from Acts 2 forward. The passages are:
Acts 2, 3, 4, 13, 26
Rom 1
Eph 1
Phil 2
Heb 1
The acceptance of the enthronement by Israel has nothing to do with an ‘alternate’ outcome that might have happened if Christ had not been crucified. We see this handled almost immediately by Peter in 2:23 which says that it happened by the predestination and foreknowledge of God. There is no undoing it, and there never was. There is no ‘offering a kingdom to Israel but they rejected Christ and it is on delay.'
This is meant to answer why it is no-one's business to seek a time for a 'kingdom for Israel' 1:8, 9.
The concern of the apostles is the after-rejection of Christ. What Israel was supposed to accept now was that the resurrection was the enthronement, v30—33. David did not foresee a ‘millenium;’ he foresaw the resurrection being the enthronment of his offspring, v33. Proof of this was the miracle of the languages to take this message all over the known world.
To declare that God had made Jesus both ‘kurios’ and ‘christos’ was now the concern, and it was declared, and the declaration was the resurrection. If you don’t know this, you must start back at Rom 1 again and realize that Paul is saying the resurrection declared Jesus to be the Son of God and of David. I say that because the comments of Peter are so condensed we might miss it, and because Luke wrote quite a bit of his material with Paul’s guidance. It was going to defend him from accusations that he was subversive to Rome.
Acts 3 relates that Christ is now in a reception-party in heaven and the miracle of the languages was an announcement down here below that this is going on. The verb in 3:21 has nothing to do with ‘keeping’ him or ‘holding him back.’ He made many visits to the young church to keep it moving and supported. It is saying he is the honored one in the reception in heaven right now until the final day of judgement, when he will put his feet up on a cushion made of his enemies.
Nor is the sending (v20) an interruption of what is going on in the church, but support for it. Again, the apostle is concerned with an after-rejection of Christ and puts it on the level of a rejection of Moses because Moses declared such a new prophet was coming, 3:22. In v25 they are reminded that the Abrahamic promise always was about blessing the Gentiles with Christ. It was never about the land of Israel as such.
In ch. 4, the resurrection is set on the level of events as creation, v24. The apostles pray Ps. 2, realizing that the power and plan of God let the crucifixion happen, v28, but now the apostles want signs that will deal with after-rejection and challenge all people, including their own rulers. They can’t undo the past, but they want power to move forward against the after-effects of such rejection. There are good signs: the number of believers in v4 above is already 5000.
In ch 13 is a summary of Israel’s history and in the 4 quotes from the OT about the meaning of the resurrection, v33. To start with all things promised to the fathers are said to be fulfilled in the resurrection. This doctrine alone should answer why ‘seeking a kingdom for Israel’ was an off-limits concern back in ch 1. Everything has to be resurrection-based and shaped. But in v34, Isaiah 55 is quoted that the oaths sworn to David would be fulfilled this way, validating exactly what 2:30-33 says, through the resurrection. They would be given to the Son in honor of the Son. This is no mystery because of Ps 2. It is simply a mystery or puzzle to modern ‘prophecy-students and -experts’ because way too much attention is put on modern times.
In ch 26 we actually find Paul dealing with the misguided momentum of Judaism all over again. Again, the first rejection of Christ could not be helped, but the apostles worked to deal with the after-rejection. He is on hope because he believes the hope of Israel is fulfilled, v6. You can’t meddle with the central hope of Israel any more explicitly than that! They think (v7) it is something they will attain by temple observances. It is the point of the accusation by the Jews!
The answer is to validate the resurrection (he means of Christ, but knows that resurrection in general is a problem among Sadducees, etc).
But to turn to God, v20, means to believe that the resurrection is the enthronement, which is nothing beyond (!) what the prophets and Moses said would happen: the suffering and resurrection-enthronement of Christ that made him now a mission to the Gentiles. That’s what he was raised up for, from the beginning, to make a mission fulfilled and accomplished.
We can tell this from the exchange with Agrippa, whom Paul wants on his (the Gospel’s) side. Agrippa won’t do it, but Paul says I want all people to be like me, except for the chains, of course. Paul wanted all Israel, all rulers, all people to be in his mission for the Gospel, because that was the objective of the King (Christ) all along.
Now in the letters, we find all this confirmed. First, in Romans 1 we see the son of David by lineage was also the enthroned Son of God, in which the resurrection itself declared this. If this is not essential to your Christian doctrine, you don’t know what the apostles were about.
There is no mistaking that Paul from ch 10-11 envisioned all Israel being missionaries, but it was missed by its leaders.
In the wrap up of ch 16, we find something similar to the resurrection itself declaring the enthroned King. It is a divine order. The divine order (tagma) of v26 is that Gentiles would be reached. This dates back to Genesis of course, but it is necessary to remind the readers how embedded this is. The Gentiles were reached. Paul is saying that fact (which came about through the early mission work) happened because it was a divine order by a King. Thus the phenomenon is “through Jesus Christ” v27.
In Eph 1, all the wonders of things accomplished in Christ are listed and then Paul prays that they will understand that it was the power of God in the resurrection (v20) which brought it all into existence. This is why the fundamental declaration of Christians is truth that is in Jesus (in his events), not other, later, re-doing Judaic/Davidic events). V22 is one rare place where it is said that everything is under his feet, when this is clearly being waited for elsewhere. Part of this is due to how soon this was expected by the early church, to be adjusted after it did not come about after the destruction of Jerusalem.
In Phil 2, we have the utterly astonishing debasement of Christ, v8, turned around in to the ultimate exaltation. It would be ridiculous to think this was something other than the resurrection even though the term is not there. The resurrection was his enthronement, his gaining the name above all earthly names. Every knee and tongue will one day acknowledge this.
In Heb 1, he is seated for accomplishing the atonement, v3. Not substantially different from anything we have read so far. The expression is from Ps 110 of course.
“Of the Son, he says, Your throne O God, is forever…” now that the resurrection has occurred, vs 8 adding to v5, both quotes of Ps 110. In 11, 12 we find that this world is not adequate for his final kingdom, it must be the NHNE. And of course, he is above the angels. The speaker verifies this in 2:5, that we are not talking about this world, once again diminishing any thought that some kind of kingdom on earth would do. Nor do we see that kind of kingdom now on earth, v8, but instead the kind that commands all people on earth in the imperative sense, not the indicative. All people should honor him as King now. Since he was ‘speaking about the world to come’ and ‘this world will be rolled up like old garments,’ there is hardly a place for re-doing such things His resurrection destroyed death and Satan. We share in His victory by believing in Him about this, as the only right response.
Thus we see in the NT that there is not really a satisfactory Christian doctrine if it does not say the resurrection was the kingdom that was coming, that the Davidic passage say this, that Isaiah declared such a transfer (an awareness that Israel thought such oaths were “theirs,”) and that the resurrection fulfills all promises to the fathers. It created a mission to the nations, which was difficult for Israel to accept, given the oaths they were occupied with, but the mission would succeed apart from Israel’s participation.
The NT Enthronement Doctrine
Marcus Sanford, THE ENTHRONED KING (2020)
This essay takes the same topic as my book THE ENTHRONED KING and sequentially lists the doctrine of the Davidic enthronement from Acts 2 forward. The passages are:
Acts 2, 3, 4, 13, 26
Rom 1
Eph 1
Phil 2
Heb 1
The acceptance of the enthronement by Israel has nothing to do with an ‘alternate’ outcome that might have happened if Christ had not been crucified. We see this handled almost immediately by Peter in 2:23 which says that it happened by the predestination and foreknowledge of God. There is no undoing it, and there never was. There is no ‘offering a kingdom to Israel but they rejected Christ and it is on delay.'
This is meant to answer why it is no-one's business to seek a time for a 'kingdom for Israel' 1:8, 9.
The concern of the apostles is the after-rejection of Christ. What Israel was supposed to accept now was that the resurrection was the enthronement, v30—33. David did not foresee a ‘millenium;’ he foresaw the resurrection being the enthronment of his offspring, v33. Proof of this was the miracle of the languages to take this message all over the known world.
To declare that God had made Jesus both ‘kurios’ and ‘christos’ was now the concern, and it was declared, and the declaration was the resurrection. If you don’t know this, you must start back at Rom 1 again and realize that Paul is saying the resurrection declared Jesus to be the Son of God and of David. I say that because the comments of Peter are so condensed we might miss it, and because Luke wrote quite a bit of his material with Paul’s guidance. It was going to defend him from accusations that he was subversive to Rome.
Acts 3 relates that Christ is now in a reception-party in heaven and the miracle of the languages was an announcement down here below that this is going on. The verb in 3:21 has nothing to do with ‘keeping’ him or ‘holding him back.’ He made many visits to the young church to keep it moving and supported. It is saying he is the honored one in the reception in heaven right now until the final day of judgement, when he will put his feet up on a cushion made of his enemies.
Nor is the sending (v20) an interruption of what is going on in the church, but support for it. Again, the apostle is concerned with an after-rejection of Christ and puts it on the level of a rejection of Moses because Moses declared such a new prophet was coming, 3:22. In v25 they are reminded that the Abrahamic promise always was about blessing the Gentiles with Christ. It was never about the land of Israel as such.
In ch. 4, the resurrection is set on the level of events as creation, v24. The apostles pray Ps. 2, realizing that the power and plan of God let the crucifixion happen, v28, but now the apostles want signs that will deal with after-rejection and challenge all people, including their own rulers. They can’t undo the past, but they want power to move forward against the after-effects of such rejection. There are good signs: the number of believers in v4 above is already 5000.
In ch 13 is a summary of Israel’s history and in the 4 quotes from the OT about the meaning of the resurrection, v33. To start with all things promised to the fathers are said to be fulfilled in the resurrection. This doctrine alone should answer why ‘seeking a kingdom for Israel’ was an off-limits concern back in ch 1. Everything has to be resurrection-based and shaped. But in v34, Isaiah 55 is quoted that the oaths sworn to David would be fulfilled this way, validating exactly what 2:30-33 says, through the resurrection. They would be given to the Son in honor of the Son. This is no mystery because of Ps 2. It is simply a mystery or puzzle to modern ‘prophecy-students and -experts’ because way too much attention is put on modern times.
In ch 26 we actually find Paul dealing with the misguided momentum of Judaism all over again. Again, the first rejection of Christ could not be helped, but the apostles worked to deal with the after-rejection. He is on hope because he believes the hope of Israel is fulfilled, v6. You can’t meddle with the central hope of Israel any more explicitly than that! They think (v7) it is something they will attain by temple observances. It is the point of the accusation by the Jews!
The answer is to validate the resurrection (he means of Christ, but knows that resurrection in general is a problem among Sadducees, etc).
But to turn to God, v20, means to believe that the resurrection is the enthronement, which is nothing beyond (!) what the prophets and Moses said would happen: the suffering and resurrection-enthronement of Christ that made him now a mission to the Gentiles. That’s what he was raised up for, from the beginning, to make a mission fulfilled and accomplished.
We can tell this from the exchange with Agrippa, whom Paul wants on his (the Gospel’s) side. Agrippa won’t do it, but Paul says I want all people to be like me, except for the chains, of course. Paul wanted all Israel, all rulers, all people to be in his mission for the Gospel, because that was the objective of the King (Christ) all along.
Now in the letters, we find all this confirmed. First, in Romans 1 we see the son of David by lineage was also the enthroned Son of God, in which the resurrection itself declared this. If this is not essential to your Christian doctrine, you don’t know what the apostles were about.
There is no mistaking that Paul from ch 10-11 envisioned all Israel being missionaries, but it was missed by its leaders.
In the wrap up of ch 16, we find something similar to the resurrection itself declaring the enthroned King. It is a divine order. The divine order (tagma) of v26 is that Gentiles would be reached. This dates back to Genesis of course, but it is necessary to remind the readers how embedded this is. The Gentiles were reached. Paul is saying that fact (which came about through the early mission work) happened because it was a divine order by a King. Thus the phenomenon is “through Jesus Christ” v27.
In Eph 1, all the wonders of things accomplished in Christ are listed and then Paul prays that they will understand that it was the power of God in the resurrection (v20) which brought it all into existence. This is why the fundamental declaration of Christians is truth that is in Jesus (in his events), not other, later, re-doing Judaic/Davidic events). V22 is one rare place where it is said that everything is under his feet, when this is clearly being waited for elsewhere. Part of this is due to how soon this was expected by the early church, to be adjusted after it did not come about after the destruction of Jerusalem.
In Phil 2, we have the utterly astonishing debasement of Christ, v8, turned around in to the ultimate exaltation. It would be ridiculous to think this was something other than the resurrection even though the term is not there. The resurrection was his enthronement, his gaining the name above all earthly names. Every knee and tongue will one day acknowledge this.
In Heb 1, he is seated for accomplishing the atonement, v3. Not substantially different from anything we have read so far. The expression is from Ps 110 of course.
“Of the Son, he says, Your throne O God, is forever…” now that the resurrection has occurred, vs 8 adding to v5, both quotes of Ps 110. In 11, 12 we find that this world is not adequate for his final kingdom, it must be the NHNE. And of course, he is above the angels. The speaker verifies this in 2:5, that we are not talking about this world, once again diminishing any thought that some kind of kingdom on earth would do. Nor do we see that kind of kingdom now on earth, v8, but instead the kind that commands all people on earth in the imperative sense, not the indicative. All people should honor him as King now. Since he was ‘speaking about the world to come’ and ‘this world will be rolled up like old garments,’ there is hardly a place for re-doing such things His resurrection destroyed death and Satan. We share in His victory by believing in Him about this, as the only right response.
Thus we see in the NT that there is not really a satisfactory Christian doctrine if it does not say the resurrection was the kingdom that was coming, that the Davidic passage say this, that Isaiah declared such a transfer (an awareness that Israel thought such oaths were “theirs,”) and that the resurrection fulfills all promises to the fathers. It created a mission to the nations, which was difficult for Israel to accept, given the oaths they were occupied with, but the mission would succeed apart from Israel’s participation.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
You don't know your Bible. Luke 13:35 is not at the end of Jesus' ministry but in the middle, meaning, like many similar passages, they likely will not understand what he is actually doing--beyond the crucifixion of course. These things were said for the after-rejection problem.
There was no stopping the resurrection. There is no other alt-outcome on that. The issue of the apostles was stopping the after-rejection that would destroy the country.
I hope you will stop thinking in your futurist mode and become a historian. It is a completely different world.
[I'm out of time and can't get back to normal font. Much more is italiciszed than intended]
3 Resurrections
That's 666 YEARS, folks
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2023
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Greenville SC
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Conservative
The 144,000 Jewish tribal members are the same in Revelation 7 and Revelation 14. They both have the mark and the seal of God in their foreheads (Rev. 7:3-4 and Rev. 14:1).
Have you never heard of "the rule of first mention" in writing? The definite article "THE 144,000" refers back to the original mention of "A 144,000". It's the same in the case of Rev. 20's millennium. First, a period of "A thousand years" is mentioned. Then "THE thousand years" is mentioned, which refers back to the original mention of "A thousand years". So every mention of the thousand years in Rev. 20 is speaking of the very same time period.
In speaking of "not being defiled by a woman", John also was referring to the lascivious doctrine of Balaam in those days, with the self-styled prophetess "Jezebel" who was then teaching the servants of God to commit fornication and eating things offered to idols (Rev. 2:20). These 144,000 resurrected individuals who were "without fault" were unaffected by this doctrine of committing fornication. They remained "virgins" in their righteous, bodily-resurrected state which could not commit a sin of fornication, neither would they marry nor be given in marriage in that bodily-resurrected state.
And here you are again presuming that this ability to reign with Christ during the thousand years FOLLOWED their being raised to life again. That's not what John said. During their natural lifetime on earth, they each shared in reigning with Christ. Then they died and became the "souls" which John saw. When this remnant of the dead was raised to life again, this event was called the "First resurrection".
This is "THE thousand years", (ta chilia ete, with the definite article) speaking of the same thousand years in which Satan's deception had once been bound. During their natural lifetime each of those 144,000 had shared in the benefits of living during the time when God had bound Satan's deception of the nations up until AD 33 when Satan was once more released for a "little season" and a "short time". This "short time" John wrote had already begun, which present release of Satan the believers were being warned about in Revelation 12:12.
The judgment was going to take place at the resurrection. This would have involved Felix. Paul told Timothy that God was "about to judge both the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom." (2 Timothy 4:1 - written around AD 66/67).
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
The thing that matters is this:
a futurist reads the gospels/NT letters and imagines, out of nowhere, that the writer and reader were absolutely obsessed with things X000 years in the future, and since that future is now here, you need to ask them what the material means. In fact, even the apostles do.
A historian reads the material and reassembles what they had going on at the time and finds that they thought nothing of X000 years in the future, more like 30-40, in very visceral and gripping terms, too.
Barnett is one such. Even more valuable than the impressive reach of Brinsmead and Paxton of the Australian Forum. Barnett: BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE NT, "Patmos" next to last ch. I have reprinted a selection someplace here.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
still very much Satan's world
I'm sorry I can't communicate the point better. The degree of ownership does not matter to the believer; the believer is not looking for outward show/signs of ownership. It is a matter of title deed: the place belongs to Christ because of what he accomplished. I'm sure, also, that you believe that but you don't "do" your eschatology with that belief. That must change, to express what the apostles said.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,201
- Reaction score
- 345
- Points
- 83
If you need a millenium in the Davidic-Judaic sense, then there is two programs. Even with the mention of the mill in the Rev (there is no mention in letters), there is nothing Davidic-Judaic about it, because that is fulfilled. The fulfillment is the Davidics of Acts--unless, of course, we have decided that we are more informed than the apostles.
When people go for a Davidic-Judaic millenium, they go for the temple, they go for the worship system, etc. This is why when push comes to shove in Dan 9 on 'the everlasting righteousness, the atonement for sin' these people invent a 2nd program: Israel the race-nation will be dealt with different from Christians, including another atonement. Bc God owes it to them to be "honest" (God is not a liar, so there can't be a change in Gen 12:3 or at least not in Isaiah.)
My point was not to claim expertise on you but to say that two programs drives such things, so that, as some scholars have said, it is another form of Judaism all over again. "I just have to believe that God will do something with the race-nation again..." as they say.
That remnant line you gave is true; actually the apostles already saw it as past tense, not expect any more than Rom 11:14 to happen.
There is no much of a sense of distant future in the apostles, no much past 30-40 years. This must be remembered when handling. They are not utterly engrossed in X000 future year events, but with how all business like this was about to be finally resolved in their times.
Similar threads
